1. The portfolio addresses course outcomes by being extremely specific; each outcome is a tag which she addresses specifically in each response. The outcomes are spelled out from the course syllabus, and she responds to each, explaining how she fulfilled them. We don’t find this to be particularly creative- it is very straight forward. The outcomes are told to the audience first, and then shown how they are fulfilled.

2. The portfolio provides evidence from her writing and Jentery’s feedback.  She quotes  lines directly, and often provides examples of her writing before and after revision. Her responses are also available as artifacts on the portfolio.

3. The rhetorical strategies which were most effective included her writing style (her writing and organization was extremely meticulous and uniformly laid out), her use of examples in her writing and the easy to read format of her portfolio.

4. 1. Her theme could have been more tangible (we didn’t really see one). It would have made reading it more interesting.

2.  Her writing style could have been more creative or light hearted. Right now the portfolio is extremely plain and down to business, there was nothing which drew the audience in and made us want to keep reading.

3…

5. We learned about the importance of theme and creativity. It makes for a much more enjoyable read. Good organization also appears to be essential for a portfolio. Sarah’s was extremely easy to follow, even if it wasn’t the most exciting read.

6. 3.2; it covers all the bases, but isn’t super creative.

(1) Jessica Vu addresses the course outcomes directly. She paraphrases them and says how the themes of the course were used to fulfill the outcomes.

(2) Vu includes the prompts for the paper, her original drafts, Jentery’s letters, and her final drafts at attachments. She contextualizes the assignments within the course so readers can understand what each paper is about. Including these documents allows readers to see the progression of her work, including how she incorporated Jentery’s suggestions. In her explanatory paragraphs, she also gives concrete examples of how she fulfilled the outcomes, often quoting her paper, so the reader doesn’t have to make these conclusions for him/herself.

(3) Organization – she clearly labels sections as being about a specific outcome, so it’s very easy to read and see what point she’s trying to make. Language – she speaks neither too casually nor too informally, so she’s credible without being hard to understand. Use of evidence – makes her persuasive.

(4)

(5) Organization – including a general introduction, then labeling sections as being about “Outcome 1” or “Outcome 2” is very clear and helps the reader understand where you’re going. Contextualizing – Vu argues not only that the papers not only fulfill the course outcomes but also address the main theme of the course. Quotes – giving quotes from your own paper to show what was lacking in your first paper, what Jentery specifically told you to change, and how you addressed these suggestions in your final paper is very effective. Also, it’s good to attach not only your final paper but also the original, unrevised version and Jentery’s suggestions.

(6) 3.6

1.

• attached course outcomes page
• summarized the outcomes in his own words (intro. page)
• explicitly states how he met the course outcomes for each of his papers

2.

• provides examples from his papers
• sometimes uses outside text from readings
• uses peer and teacher reviews

3.

• consistent site design
• uses evidence to prove his point
• academic tone
• addresses the audience of his 131 peers

4

• use theme more effectively
• expand on ideas
• define words the audience isn’t likely to know

5.

• consistently support our ideas with evidence
• consistent/noticeable theme
• describe how outcomes were met

6. We would give this portfolio a 3.7 because it supports it’s claim and has few weaknesses!

What type of evidence does the portfolio provide? To what effects?

The portfolio provides several forms of evidence such as: a power point presentation, his other works not published on the portfolio, and links within the portfolio for prompts. These assist us in discovering the background to the portfolio since we were not present in the class.

4. Garreth’s writing style, especially in his conclusion, was really verbose and confusing. While this might appeal to an academic audience, it was difficult to read and understand. He could fix this by simply toning down his writing, using fewer big words, and generally simplifying things. Also, while his arguments for the claims were persuasive, by the time I had gotten to read them, I’d forgotten what they were, and thus they were not as effective. All he needs to do there is put his translation of the outcomes at the top of each paragraph or something like that. The last thing that really could use fixing was just the general organization of his site– sometimes he put the prompt on the page twice, sometimes he didn’t put up Jentery’s response to it, etc. He should have just put one of each thing in once, in the same place, and made sure each part was there every time.

5. From this portfolio, we learned that adding in your own personal tone can help to make the portfolio more personable. The way that Gareth writes is very direct and he tries to have a theme, but throughout his portfolio he fails to make the page interesting. So, in the service of our portfolios, we can add our own charcter and tone so that the reader wants to actually read it.

Here are some example major papers from last year’s second sequence. As I mentioned in class, these students did not have the opportunity of having examples. Accordingly, consider these launching pads into your own work.

Please also note that these papers emerge from varying degrees of revision. Read for potential lines of inquiry and expandable ideas. Indeed, read for how they approached the prompt and how their approach might be augmented.

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

Let me know what questions you have!

Well, let’s start with a few examples.

 

 Example 1: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

 

 Example 2: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

 

 Example 3: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Ok, now that we have some examples, what appears common amongst all three? What “components” are required? What are the announcements doing? How are they doing it? And how do their rhetorical approaches differ?

With the answers to the above questions in mind, let’s group up and begin thinking about Response Paper 2.2, which is slated for two weeks from now in the Allen Auditorium.

In your groups, post a single entry, which should be categorized under “Audio PSAs,” that articulates the following:

• How are you going to record this thing? Who in your group will do the recording?
• What social issue related to your local Boys and Girls Club might you target? Who in your group might research this issue a bit more? (You need evidence, right?)
• Why does your issue warrant more public attention? Why does it matter? Who cares?
• What might be your target audience?
• Imagine how your PSA might be “public.” Where would you play it? When?
• Since your PSA is sound only, how will it engage your target audience? Who in your group might be responsible for the “creative construction” or “sound-scripting” of your PSA?

If you have time remaining, then you might also include some preliminary ideas. What’s your plan? How is this thing going to sound? What’s it going to do? When and how will you compose it?

As you do so, ask me questions!

Let us do this, people!

To prep for your final portfolios, please get into your sequence two groups.Once you have done so, then you will be assigned a portfolio from one of my previous courses to constructively review, grade, and blog. Here are the assignments:

Group 1: Sarah Wang’s 131 Portfolio with a “tags” theme (passcode is “sarah”)

Group 2: Zachary Brown’s 131 Portfolio with a robot theme

Group 3: Gareth Snow’s 131 Portfolio with an “algorithm” and “atlas” theme

Group 4: Jessica Vu’s 131 Portfolio with a “movement” theme

Group 5: Kendell Tylee’s 131 Portfolio with a diversity theme

For this collaborative workshop, each group should work its way through the portfolio, emphasizing the “meta-text” and “meta-arguments” in the portfolio itself (with less emphasis on the attached papers and evidence).

Once you have reviewed the entire portfolio, then you should compose a single blog entry for your entire group (categorized under “e-portfolio”) and that entry should answer the following questions:

(1) How does the portfolio address the course outcomes and emerge from the course? Be specific. Are the outcomes in the students own words? Are they explicitly mentioned? Are they creatively integrated? Are they shown, or are they just told?

(2) What type of evidence does the portfolio provide? To what effects?

(3) What three rhetorical strategies (e.g., how the student says what she says) are most effective or persuasive about the portfolio? Strategies might include theme, writing style, ways of addressing the audience, and site design.

(4) Name three things that could be more effective or more persuasive and explain how they could be revised accordingly.

(5) As a group of 100-level English students, what from this portfolio might you use in the service of your own portfolios? That is, what did you learn about the portfolio process from your example portfolio?

(6) Based upon what you read, what grade would you give this portfolio on the 4.0 scale? (And don’t ask me what grade I gave it. You know that I cannot release student grades.)

Two things to keep in mind: (1) The audience for this entry includes the balance of your 121 classmates, and (2) as you write, you must include at least five transitions from the class website.

Also, please note that the course outcomes may have changed since these portfolios were composed. In fact, they did.

I’ll give you about forty-five minutes to read the portfolios and complete your blog entry. And when you are finished, you’ll report back out to the class.

Let me know what questions you have!